Chris Matthews: I almost forgot Obama was black...
Options
Comments
-
who are you calling "enemies of the Germans" in this statement?
In this case lets say the US. Why were we supporting france and Britain with guns and ammo and other supplies before we officailly joined the war?
The so called sinking of American ships with unrestricted usage of submarines is a bogus reason.
Why were the Zionist promised land and then given the rights to it after it was already promised to someone else?
Do you see a conflict of interest if the Zionist leaders are making deals with the other side while fighting as allies with the Germans?all the more reason to find it questionable that they stabbed Germany in the back.
After the declaration was made the Jews were steadily getting news that they would get thier homeland if Germany lost.
This news was spread through various conduits in germany, Russia, Great Britain, America, and France.this is not about whether or not Jews can do something wrong, but whether or not it's accurate to saying Germany lost WWI because they were stabbed in the back by Jews.
I will refuse to say Germany Lost the war because of the JEWS, but I will say jews had major influence behind the seens of how the war played out. -
because we wanted to side with the British and the French. and there's no reason to attribute that solely to "Jews stabbing Germany in the back." do i see a conflict of "if the Zionist leaders are making deals with the other side while fighting as allies with the Germans?" what are these "Zionist leaders" the leaders of? are you claiming that every Jew in the German armed forces are at the beck and call of Jewish leaders that direct them?perspective@100 wrote: »In this case lets say the US. Why were we supporting france and Britain with guns and ammo and other supplies before we officailly joined the war?
uh-huhperspective@100 wrote: »After the declaration was made the Jews were steadily getting news that they would get thier homeland if Germany lost.
basically, you're continuing to not blame Germany for their own decisions and mistakes and lay all the blame at the feet of Jews. the US would never have supported Britain if not for JEWS. Germany only made their tactical errors because of JEWS. this is ridiculous.perspective@100 wrote: »I will refuse to say Germany Lost the war because of the JEWS, but I will say jews had major influence behind the seens of how the war played out. -
Chris Matthews: I almost forgot ? was German...
-
^This thread went totally off topic
-
because we wanted to side with the British and the French. and there's no reason to attribute that solely to "Jews stabbing Germany in the back." do i see a conflict of "if the Zionist leaders are making deals with the other side while fighting as allies with the Germans?" what are these "Zionist leaders" the leaders of? are you claiming that every Jew in the German armed forces are at the beck and call of Jewish leaders that direct them?
Yeah, why side with the British and French? Old woodrow was campagning on the U.S. not being in the war...
I've presented reasons why, and you have NOT presented any why nots, as to why Jews would make or not make shady deals as I stated originally. Not only reasons, but proof I have provided.
Heres More>>> Chaim Azriel Weizmann, Hebrew: חיים עזריאל ויצמן, (27 November 1874 – 9 November 1952) was a Zionist leader, President of the World Zionist Organization, and the first President of the State of Israel.
Directly involved in the declaration and had a massive Jewish following which was lead from the headquarters in Germany. Became the damn President, lol if you dont see the link you just blind....<<not to be a name caller.basically, you're continuing to not blame Germany for their own decisions and mistakes and lay all the blame at the feet of Jews. the US would never have supported Britain if not for JEWS. Germany only made their tactical errors because of JEWS. this is ridiculous.
Stop putting words in my mouth I have never stated or supported any of the Bolded. You are convinced I am ? when I am clearly stating facts that you refuse to interpret with an objective eye. You have written off my arguement based on your own presumptions.
The underlined I will debate with you until your hearts content!playmaker88 wrote: »^This thread went totally off topic
true... -
Wilson was playing up his isolationism to get votes, and as the guy who was all emotional about the League of Nations, it's difficult as really not being interested in getting into the war. he was also a raging racist, which strongly makes me doubt he gave that much of a damn about shady Jewish plots.perspective@100 wrote: »Yeah, why side with the British and French? Old woodrow was campagning on the U.S. not being in the war...
I've presented reasons why, and you have NOT presented any why nots, as to why Jews would make or not make shady deals as I stated originally. Not only reasons, but proof I have provided.
also, i am not arguing "why the Jews would not make shady deals" because i don't agree with the argument that Jews are the reason the Germans lost the war. it's a ridiculous ? assertion.
flat-out lie, because you've been arguing, including in this post, that Jews are the reason we sided with Britain/France. and yes, i am going to treat your position as a ? position since, you know, your argument is the exact same one that ? made after the war: Germany only lost because they were betrayed by Jews.perspective@100 wrote: »Stop putting words in my mouth I have never stated or supported any of the Bolded.
if you weren't claiming that Germany only made their tactical errors because of Jews, you'd be acknowledging that Jews weren't the reason they lost the war. the failure of the German invasion(s) basically meant that Germany was never going to win the war, and it had nothing to do with shady Jewish plots. -
Wilson was playing up his isolationism to get votes, and as the guy who was all emotional about the League of Nations, it's difficult as really not being interested in getting into the war. he was also a raging racist, which strongly makes me doubt he gave that much of a damn about shady Jewish plots.
If he was such a "Raging Racist" why would he put the First JEW on the supreme court?<<<< more proof, SMHalso, i am not arguing "why the Jews would not make shady deals" because i don't agree with the argument that Jews are the reason the Germans lost the war.
(( it's a ridiculous ? assertion.))<< you sure?
Once again I never stated the bold/underline ever. I only said Jews had influence in bringing the U.S. into the war in support of Britain and France (provided evidence for it) and any conclusion you derive from this is your own.flat-out lie, because you've been arguing, including in this post, that Jews are the reason we sided with Britain/France. and yes, i am going to treat your position as a ? position since, you know, your argument is the exact same one that ? made after the war: Germany only lost because they were betrayed by Jews.
I have said and will continue to say the bolded because I have overwhelming proof.
Never said anything about the underlined. Just said the Jews made what I would call "suspect/shady deals" in a time of war.
If ? chose to exploit one aspect it was only to gain power and a cult like following. I am fully aware of his brain washing propaganda tactics. Its strange to me you dont think anything he said about the Jews had validity.if you weren't claiming that Germany only made their tactical errors because of Jews, you'd be acknowledging that Jews weren't the reason they lost the war. the failure of the German invasion(s) basically meant that Germany was never going to win the war, and it had nothing to do with shady Jewish plots.
I dont whole heartedly agree with this. One reason being that the war was taking a heavy toll on everyone involved and essentially had worn Russia down to the point they had to sign a treaty with Germany. At this time French moral was also low and defection in their army was at an all time high. They were expected to follow in Russia's footsteps from what history tells. The Brits stayed dying as the the Germans where using the storm trooper tactics. Until the U.S. came in, nothing was really clear on if Germany would be defeated because their invasion had failed.
My question is if you are so sure that Germany would lose the war and it had absolutely "nothing to do with Jewish plots" why was it so easy for ? to convince his COUNTRY otherwise. -
seriously, you're claiming the guy who voiced vocal support for Jim Crow laws, called Birth of a Nation terribly accurate, and actively worked to segregate both places he worked and the federal government was NOT a raging racist? huh.perspective@100 wrote: »If he was such a "Raging Racist" why would he put the First JEW on the supreme court?<<<< more proof, SMH
this is a cop-out. if you want to believe and repeat ? propaganda, please man up and do so directly.perspective@100 wrote: »Once again I never stated the bold/underline ever. I only said Jews had influence in bringing the U.S. into the war in support of Britain and France (provided evidence for it) and any conclusion you derive from this is your own.
again, you're claiming to have never addressed it WHILE talking about shady deals they cut to stab Germany in the back. to repeat, if you want to believe and repeat ? propaganda, please man up and do so directly.perspective@100 wrote: »Never said anything about the underlined. Just said the Jews made what I would call "suspect/shady deals" in a time of war.
it's strange to you that i don't believe the rantings of a crazed ? dictator? sorry, i'm not a ? , man.perspective@100 wrote: »If ? chose to exploit one aspect it was only to gain power and a cult like following. I am fully aware of his brain washing propaganda tactics. Its strange to me you dont think anything he said about the Jews had validity.
not that Germany was actively involved in that...perspective@100 wrote: »One reason being that the war was taking a heavy toll on everyone involved and essentially had worn Russia down to the point they had to sign a treaty with Germany.
not sure what that's based onperspective@100 wrote: »At this time French moral was also low and defection in their army was at an all time high. They were expected to follow in Russia's footsteps from what history tells.
why do you seem to think the war of attrition concept only worked in one direction? the reason why the US entering the war was a big deal was because of GERMAN losses that had been incurred during the war.perspective@100 wrote: »The Brits stayed dying as the the Germans where using the storm trooper tactics.
nationalist pride. again, you've claimed to have stated nothing about Jews causing Germany to lose the war...perspective@100 wrote: »My question is if you are so sure that Germany would lose the war and it had absolutely "nothing to do with Jewish plots" why was it so easy for ? to convince his COUNTRY otherwise. -
seriously, you're claiming the guy who voiced vocal support for Jim Crow laws, called Birth of a Nation terribly accurate, and actively worked to segregate both places he worked and the federal government was NOT a raging racist? huh.
You still have not answered the question about Woodrow appointing a Jew to the supreme court. You have brought up racism, but its racism toward blacks which is pretty much global in these times. Jim Crow did not do much against the Jews.this is a cop-out. if you want to believe and repeat ? propaganda, please man up and do so directly.
again, you're claiming to have never addressed it WHILE talking about shady deals they cut to stab Germany in the back. to repeat, if you want to believe and repeat ? propaganda, please man up and do so directly.
it's strange to you that i don't believe the rantings of a crazed ? dictator? sorry, i'm not a ? , man.
None of the information I have provided is, or ever was "? propaganda". It's all truth you can look up for yourself. I'm positive all of my facts are accurate and you have questioned no fact I have presented, so what is this basis of thought calling what I believe "? PROPAGANDA"? I have never quoted ? . All my assertions have come from what I read in Amercan History books And personal research from valid sources(no ? 's). My knowledge on these topics can provide citations if necessary.
I'm starting to see a pattern with your arguement though. You believe the Jews and their leaders were justified in trying to acquire their homeland dont you? Its ok if you do. I'm not Anti-Jew I can just see corrupt things clearly and how they acquired this land was corrupt.not that Germany was actively involved in that...<<you believe this?
Proof... SMH
The triumph of the Bolsheviks in November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany. At first the Bolsheviks refused the German terms, but when Germany resumed the war and marched across Ukraine with impunity, the new government acceded to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918. It took Russia out of the war and ceded vast territories, including Finland, the Baltic provinces, parts of Poland and Ukraine to the Central Powers.
In December, the Central Powers signed an armistice with Russia. This released troops for use in the west. Ironically, German troop transfers could have been greater if their territorial acquisitions had not been so dramatic.
<Germany was actually getting in Russia's ass something serious, but it worked to their detriment as they could not transfer troops fast enough out of their. Very Ironic...>not sure what that's based on
More proof... SMH
On 3 May 1917, during the Nivelle Offensive, the weary French 2nd Colonial Division, veterans of the Battle of Verdun, refused their orders, arriving ? and without their weapons. Their officers lacked the means to punish an entire division, and harsh measures were not immediately implemented. Then, mutinies afflicted an additional 54 French divisions and saw 20,000 men desert. The other Allied forces attacked but sustained tremendous casualties.[77] However, appeals to patriotism and duty, as well as mass arrests and trials, encouraged the soldiers to return to defend their trenches, although the French soldiers refused to participate in further offensive action.[78] Robert Nivelle was removed from command by 15 May, replaced by General Philippe Pétain, who suspended ? large-scale attacks.why do you seem to think the war of attrition concept only worked in one direction? the reason why the US entering the war was a big deal was because of GERMAN losses that had been incurred during the war.
You are absolutely right. Its devastating on both sides I am fully aware. I know the Germans were not obliterating the competition. I am aware of the Naval Blocade that was starving them to death. I have never denied any of their failures. In the End, they LOST. Period...nationalist pride. again, you've claimed to have stated nothing about Jews causing Germany to lose the war...
Maybe I should have just said the Jews were fighting like sissies in the German army? Thats a joke by the way don't start calling me a damn ? again... -
Woodrow Wilson's support for Birth of a Nation is essentially support for the second generation of the KKK. do yourself a little internet search on said KKK's position on Jews. this is a guy that further defended the KKK in writing. i'll attribute the Brandeis nomination to Brandeis being a supporter of Wilson, but if your claim is that Wilson wasn't a racist and/or that he loved Jews ... this seems questionable.perspective@100 wrote: »You still have not answered the question about Woodrow appointing a Jew to the supreme court. You have brought up racism, but its racism toward blacks which is pretty much global in these times. Jim Crow did not do much against the Jews.
except for your repeated assertion that Jews stabbed Germany in the back and cost them WWI, which was a major ? speaking point.perspective@100 wrote: »None of the information I have provided is, or ever was "? propaganda".
actually, you've completely missed the point of my argument, which is that Germany entered the war and then lost it to a combination of bad tactics and facing ultimately overwhelming odds, and that the issue of "Jews stabbing Germany in the back" is a fake argument parroted after the war to excuse Germans losing said war.perspective@100 wrote: »I'm starting to see a pattern with your arguement though. You believe the Jews and their leaders were justified in trying to acquire their homeland dont you? Its ok if you do. I'm not Anti-Jew I can just see corrupt things clearly and how they acquired this land was corrupt.
but please, make this argument about my position on a Jewish homeland, because that certainly won't support my theory that you've bought the ? line completely.
you can pause your litany there and tell me what, if anything, Germany had to do with the creation of the Bolsheviks in question.perspective@100 wrote: »The triumph of the Bolsheviks in November was followed in December by an armistice and negotiations with Germany-
some things you might have missed in that paragraph include "encouraged the soldiers to return to defend their trenches," but more importantly, "Robert Nivelle was ... replaced by General Philippe Pétain." do we recall why Pétain was so beloved by Frenchmen? the French being disgusted with Nivelle and/or that style of leadership during the war was fairly common, but it's not historical precedent that France was "going the way of Russia." i would also point out that the US had already declared war on Germany at the time of this offensive, something that further prevented this "precedented" deterioration.perspective@100 wrote: »More proof... SMH
don't keep telling me Jews cost Germany the warperspective@100 wrote: »Maybe I should have just said the Jews were fighting like sissies in the German army? Thats a joke by the way don't start calling me a damn ? again... -
@Janklow--- so let me get this straight, if I say Jews made shady deals during the time of world war 1, I am dubbed a ? ?
That sound like some ? . If I dont believe in ? I must be the devil too, lol. << is this how religion works?
when is the last time any member of the KKK made history by hiring a minority into office, umm never.
Andrew Jackson put an American Indian on the supreme court? Right...
You keep saying I said the Jews cost Germany the war please show me where I said that. Nevermind I know I didn't.
Also you have a clever way of diluting facts. The french were pretty much forced to comeback and fight which is shown in that same paragraph. And they still were slaughtered
The war itself caused the revolution because of what was happening in Russia. Germany had everything to do with it and if you don't think so your in denial.
Your not making sense anymore so I'm doing what those southern states did when Lincoln got elected. Nice debate overall.... Peace -
but please, make this argument about my position on a Jewish homeland, because that certainly won't support my theory that you've bought the ? line completely.
One last thing... this line had me dying, lol
I'm about to do some research on that whole area and develop an opinion on who that Land should belong to. Hope your around when I make my assertions as it may take me a while... -
Honestly, I don't think their was anything racist about what he said. He's just saying that the country saw a man for his position and not his color.
-
unspoken respect wrote: »Honestly, I don't think their was anything racist about what he said. He's just saying that the country saw a man for his position and not his color.
Listening to him his public persona doesnt not give you the impression he is racist.. but it was racially dense.. Ignorant and unconsciously racially charged comments. -
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think he was trying to offend anyone by saying that.
-
unspoken respect wrote: »I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think he was trying to offend anyone by saying that.
Agreed. All he had to say was what a great job obama did tonite in communicating his point -
you didn't say that alone, you repeated a line specifically used by the Nazis when they raged about the conclusion of World War I. and oddly enough, you don't want to seem to acknowledge that.perspective@100 wrote: »@Janklow--- so let me get this straight, if I say Jews made shady deals during the time of world war 1, I am dubbed a ? ?
seriously, you're arguing that Woodrow Wilson wasn't a racist?perspective@100 wrote: »when is the last time any member of the KKK made history by hiring a minority into office, umm never.
not sure how Andrew Jackson hating Indians keeps notorious racist Woodrow Wilson from being a racist. how about you go back to the source you've quoted before (Wikipedia) and look up Woodrow Wilson?perspective@100 wrote: »Andrew Jackson put an American Indian on the supreme court? Right...
"The Jews began making shady deals and back stabbing Germans during "World War I" because of greed for Land."perspective@100 wrote: »You keep saying I said the Jews cost Germany the war please show me where I said that. Nevermind I know I didn't.
"The Jews began making shady deals and back stabbing Germans during "World War I" because of greed for Land."
"The Jews began making shady deals and back stabbing Germans during "World War I" because of greed for Land."
you should read up on Petain a little. well, ignore the Vichy stuff later because the French are going to justify that with "he's our WWI hero."perspective@100 wrote: »Also you have a clever way of diluting facts. The french were pretty much forced to comeback and fight which is shown in that same paragraph. And they still were slaughtered
i'm talking specifically about Germany's facilitation of Lenin's travel to Russia, allowed specifically to encourage social and political unrest in Russia.perspective@100 wrote: »The war itself caused the revolution because of what was happening in Russia. Germany had everything to do with it and if you don't think so your in denial.
rage about how black people will become citizens and get your ass kicked by Grant?perspective@100 wrote: »Your not making sense anymore so I'm doing what those southern states did when Lincoln got elected.
